I have kids; neither me nor the other parents I know show off our pictures of them. If we do, it's usually because we've been asked, or it's people posting stuff to social, which I don't think is quite the same. If I had to guess, it's an older generation thing. That said, I DO take pictures of my kids, but that's almost always exclusively for sharing within the family.
Apparently the average cost is $233,610. If you save all of that and assume that the child is 18 when the parent is 45, then there's another 20 years til 65, which is enough to more than double. So $500,000+ extra at retirement per child, or about $20k spending per year (if you can delay in-home care for 10 years and use higher estimates, its as much as 45K/year extra). Apparently average cost of in-home care is ~$60k/year. So not having 2 children and saving all of the difference could make-up for that.
Plus have to consider that a child more likely than not isn't interested in being your in home caretaker for many years straight, not to mention potentially not being qualified for it (so you would need some sort of actual caretaker anyway).
At least in western countries it is pretty likely your children will move far away from you anyways. Sure, it's still nice to have someone, but it was far more valuable when you usually died in same town you were born in.
18 replies
I don't have kids... Where's my money?
Did you stand in line at the no-kids-money-giveaway factory?
They don't mail it out? Fuck me...
It was right besides the line for Ferraris for those who don't smoke.
I feel like xkcd did this one better
Got me to chuckle ahah
I have no kids, and no money. Where is all this money I was promised?!?
I have kids; neither me nor the other parents I know show off our pictures of them. If we do, it's usually because we've been asked, or it's people posting stuff to social, which I don't think is quite the same. If I had to guess, it's an older generation thing. That said, I DO take pictures of my kids, but that's almost always exclusively for sharing within the family.
Forgot the last panel where the guy with money dies alone with nobody to take care of him.
Imagine being such a selfish person to only have kids so they can support you.
At least his kids won't die in the irradiated wasteland of the post-apocalypse, if they're lucky.
Quite dramatic
You're making children so that you can have indentured servants when you're old? That's pretty weird.
(ps. money can be exchanged for goods and services, including caretakers)
Apparently the average cost is $233,610. If you save all of that and assume that the child is 18 when the parent is 45, then there's another 20 years til 65, which is enough to more than double. So $500,000+ extra at retirement per child, or about $20k spending per year (if you can delay in-home care for 10 years and use higher estimates, its as much as 45K/year extra). Apparently average cost of in-home care is ~$60k/year. So not having 2 children and saving all of the difference could make-up for that.
Plus have to consider that a child more likely than not isn't interested in being your in home caretaker for many years straight, not to mention potentially not being qualified for it (so you would need some sort of actual caretaker anyway).
Bold of you to assume humanity will make it that long.
At least in western countries it is pretty likely your children will move far away from you anyways. Sure, it's still nice to have someone, but it was far more valuable when you usually died in same town you were born in.
Everyone dies alone.